Margarita Okhovati

The applicant, a 90-year-old condominium owner, applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had sufficient net monthly income and equity in her property to pay her property taxes, and that her lifestyle and expenses did not demonstrate extreme poverty.

The applicant applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found that she did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The evidence showed that the applicant and her daughter had sufficient assets, including equity in the property and cash savings, to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2014 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty following the death of her husband.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicant suffered from depression, she did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty.

Evidence showed she had access to significant funds, including a $50,000 loan and a $40,401 life insurance payout, and her credit card statements indicated she did not live within her means.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking cancellation of her 2015 property taxes due to sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant is a single mother who provides 24-hour care for her adult son with severe autism, preventing her from seeking employment.

The Board found that the applicant met the criteria for both sickness (due to the stress and demands of caring for her disabled son) and extreme poverty, noting her limited income, lack of assets other than her primary residence, and the undue hardship that would result from forcing her to sell her home.

The Board granted the application and cancelled the property taxes in the amount of $6,785.12 for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 75-unit row housing rental property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property qualified for the 'new multi-residential' (NT) property tax class.

The parties agreed on an income-based valuation methodology but disputed the gross annual rental income and the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) adjustments for condition, size, and the NT classification.

The Assessment Review Board determined the gross income using actual rents, including lower rents for 'legacy' units, and added a utility gross-up.

The Board found the property to be in average condition, requiring no GIM adjustment, but applied a 9% premium to the GIM to reflect the enhanced value of the NT tax classification, rejecting MPAC's 18% premium and the appellant's position that no premium should apply.

The assessment was reduced from $17,835,000 to $15,426,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a 59-unit multi-residential apartment building in Hamilton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $5,287,000 using the Gross Income Multiplier method.

The appellant argued for a value of $4,200,000 based on fair market rent data from CMHC.

The Board preferred MPAC's methodology and comparable properties, noting the subject property was newly built in 2012.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $5,287,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 15-unit multi-residential building for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,115,000 based on the income approach.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on a 2014 sale of the subject property and a value-per-suite analysis.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the 2014 sale price adjusted downwards by 5% to reflect the January 1, 2012 valuation date, reducing the assessment to $1,091,000.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $681,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for a residential property in Toronto.

MPAC supported the assessment using a direct sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $542,000, citing inferior comparables and proximity to a hydro corridor.

The Board rejected the appellant's comparables but granted a 5% negative adjustment for the property's proximity to hydro towers, reducing the assessment to $646,950.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2013-2016 taxation years, originally assessed at $3,550,000.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $3,080,000 based on comparable properties and previous Board decisions, while MPAC defended the assessment based on its own comparables and a 5% positive adjustment for abutting green space.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' comparable sales as insufficiently similar.

However, the Board agreed with the appellant that the 5% positive adjustment for the abutting green space was unreasonable due to nuisances such as a leash-free dog park, a public walkway, and a water culvert causing flooding.

The Board removed the 5% adjustment, reducing the current value assessment to $3,372,000.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2014 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence of sickness, as no medical reports were provided.

Regarding extreme poverty, the Board noted the Applicant had significant equity in her home, a bank balance, and failed to provide supporting documentation for her claimed expenses.

The Board concluded the Applicant did not meet the high threshold for extreme poverty and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a five-acre parcel containing a banquet hall for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the banquet hall sat on only a half-acre and that the building cost should be based on an architect's pre-construction estimate for a shell building.

The respondent MPAC provided a valuation report using an Automated Cost System (ACS) and evidence of a 2012 sale of the full five-acre parcel.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation, finding the appellant's cost estimates lacked particularity and failed to account for the high-quality finishes evident in the banquet hall.

The Board reduced the assessment to $8,433,000 in accordance with MPAC's recommendation.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a property in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed to reduce the omitted assessments for 2013 and 2014 to zero.

For the 2015 taxation year, the appellant argued the assessment should be reduced because the second-floor addition was incomplete.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant unreasonably denied MPAC's requests for an internal inspection and concluded the addition was substantially complete by the statutory valuation date.

The Board confirmed the 2015 current value assessment at $346,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for a newly constructed commercial plaza for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The parties reached an agreement on the assessed values, leaving only the effective date of the omitted assessment under section 33 of the Assessment Act in dispute.

The appellants argued the effective date should be July 11, 2014, when occupancy was granted, while MPAC argued for January 1, 2014, as the building structure existed by late 2013.

The Assessment Review Board found that a building can be properly assessed whether or not it is occupied, and determined the effective date of the omitted assessment to be January 1, 2014.

The appellants appealed omitted and supplementary assessments for a newly constructed commercial plaza.

The parties agreed on the assessed values for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, leaving only the effective date of the omitted assessment in dispute.

The appellants argued the effective date should be July 11, 2014, when occupancy was permitted.

The Board agreed with MPAC that the effective date was January 1, 2014, as the structure existed prior to the end of 2013 and a building can be assessed whether or not it is occupied.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential property in Brampton, which was assessed at $647,000.

MPAC presented six comparable sales to support the assessment, while the appellants relied on the 2014 purchase price of the property and a list of unverified sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the average time-adjusted sales value of MPAC's six comparables.

The Board reduced the assessment to $612,898 for the 2015 and deemed 2016 taxation years.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2015 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant met the criteria for sickness, she failed to demonstrate extreme poverty or an inability to pay her property taxes.

The applicant had significant equity in her home, an RRSP, and failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of her financial liabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront property in Burlington for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing for a 25% reduction due to the property's location on a laneway with restricted access.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented comparable sales supporting the assessed value of $3,048,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant provided no quantitative evidence to support a reduction and that the comparable sales justified the assessment.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $3,048,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $10,450,000 for a luxury residential property in Toronto for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellant argued the assessment failed to account for unfinished areas and relied on an unclosed Agreement of Purchase and Sale to suggest a value of $7,280,000.

MPAC defended the assessment based on comparable sales and a prior settlement.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's proposed value, finding the unclosed sale unreliable and the unfinished areas unquantified.

The Board confirmed the current value at $10,450,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the 2014 property assessment of a commercial property in Toronto.

MPAC recommended a reduction from $2,258,000 to $2,184,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant sought a reduction to $1,677,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales provided by both parties and determined the current value of the property to be $2,087,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly for the 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a two-storey retail building with one residential unit located at 633 Queen Street West in Toronto.

The property was assessed at $1,630,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC argued that the value of the property lay primarily in its lot size and frontage, while the appellant argued that the building area should also be considered.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to provide evidence supporting its approach of ignoring the building's value.

Applying the average sale price per square foot of MPAC's own comparables to the subject property, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $1,183,000.